Poll of the Day > Washington is forcing you to declare as rep or dem in order to vote

(+) Yeah! (+)

WA state is forcing residents to declare on their voting ballets as either republican or democrat in order to vote for the primaries. Your declaration has to align with the vote inside as well.

This has never been a requirement in the past (anywhere that I know of), and I think it's unconstitutional. You should not have to be a republican or a democrat (or declare as one) in order to vote.

How are they even getting away with this?

---

Source?

---

A lot of states, you do have to be registered as an R or D to vote in the respective primaries. This is nothing new. I guess it's to ensure shenanigans don't ensue with people stuffing ballots boxes to screw with the election.

---

https://crosscut.com/2020/02/faq-washingtons-march-10-presidential-primary

More than that, if you don't vote right (if you vote for more then one person even another democrat) or follow the exact rules, your vote doesn't count.

In addition, Trump is the only republican candidate, so he automatiially gets all the delegates. The democrats have to get 15% or more of a district to get them, and they can be split up. If contested then the delegates can vote for whoever they want.

It's certainly more complicated which is going to cause many people to make mistakes.

Finally, horribly, your choice (Dem or Rep) is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE that anyone can look up for 60 days after the election. So not only are you forced to choose a side (Even if your a moderate and don't consider yourself a dem or rep) but now everyone is going to know what side you chose as well.

This is disgusting.

---

TyVulpine posted...

A lot of states, you do have to be registered as an R or D to vote in the respective primaries. This is nothing new. I guess it's to ensure shenanigans don't ensue with people stuffing ballots boxes to screw with the election.

Yes, this is called a closed primary. Some states have open primaries. It's been part of the U.S. electoral system for decades; we learned about this in high school.

---

TyVulpine posted...

A lot of states, you do have to be registered as an R or D to vote in the respective primaries. This is nothing new. I guess it's to ensure shenanigans don't ensue with people stuffing ballots boxes to screw with the election.

At least in CA and WA you could vote without declaring throughout my whole life (but havn't been in CA for awhile). There should be a third option and I certainly don't feel like it should be public knowledge on top of removing the third option. Your basically forcing people to choose a side.

In some ways, this could actually harm peoples careers as well, as republican owners of buisinesses etc, could now see which employees are democrats and fire them eventually (obviously for other reasons, but if you look for one, you can probably find it). I heard this was done in places like N Carolina etc, but it could easily start happening in Washington now as well.


---

I dont see the problem with them doing so for a primary

for a general election they cant do that

---

Shrug, it's just different, and even more polarizing in my opinion. Also has ramifications as far as privacy, but I guess nobody else is objecting or minds.

I don't even see how it's actually acomplishing anything, siice you can declare as demo now, and vote rep later, meaning all republicans can declare as demo's and vote for the least likely demo to win, and then vote for trump later.

That might be different if there were multiple choices for republican candidate, but there is not.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Shrug, it's just different, and even more polarizing in my opinion. Also has ramifications as far as privacy, but I guess nobody else is objecting or minds.

I don't even see how it's actually acomplishing anything, siice you can declare as demo now, and vote rep later, meaning all republicans can declare as demo's and vote for the least likely demo to win, and then vote for trump later.

That might be different if there were multiple choices for republican candidate, but there is not.

In re-election years, theres rarely, if ever, an actual opponent for the incumbent president in the primaries.

---

wolfy42 posted...

vote for the primaries

What a bad topic lmao

---

Yeah, I know that, and these changes are meant for future elections not just this one.

I am curious if you can get a list of people who request your voter information. At least you should be able to know who is looking that information up.

This just hits close to home for me because I already feel like both parties are accomplishing nothing because they are fighting each other so much, and we actually need a candidate that appeals to everyone (middle of the road) and instead of focusing on bi-partisan issues, focuses on things we can all agree on (like building our infrastructure) so we at least get something done.

I get that it's already been like this elsewhere, but it wasn't here, and it's a sudden change I didn't hear about at all until now.

---

The issue with open primaries is that voters from the other side of the aisle can intentionally show up and vote for what they view as a loser candidate as an attempt to sabotage an upcoming election

---

Mead posted...

The issue with open primaries is that voters from the other side of the aisle can intentionally show up and vote for what they view as a loser candidate as an attempt to sabotage an upcoming election

They still can, they are not forcing you to declare rep or dem permananetly, it has no effect on future elections, it only affects this one. So you can declare Dem, and then vote for whatever candidate you want, and then later vote for trump.

They could have simply just restricted the vote to 1 candidate (so you can't vote for a republican choice and dem choice, and accomplished the same thing.

Without taking away individuals privacy, or making things more complicated, but whatever, doubt it matters much in the big picture, just....was shocking

---

There are lots of arbitrary voting restrictions all over the country; this is nothing new.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/presidential-voting-season-tidal-wave-voter-suppression-washing-over-multiple-n1128041

Mead posted...

The issue with open primaries is that voters from the other side of the aisle can intentionally show up and vote for what they view as a loser candidate as an attempt to sabotage an upcoming election

But Mead, any attempt to restrict such a thing will disproportionately impact people who genuinely want to join and vote in good faith.

---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Yes, this is called a closed primary. Some states have open primaries. It's been part of the U.S. electoral system for decades; we learned about this in high school.

i don't think we actually learned about that at my school

---

Game_Grumps posted...

i don't think we actually learned about that at my school

I took poly sci in college and i'm sure we covered it (in fact it was while getting my AA and I was the only student that actually asked questions and had a conversation with the teacher). I liked the class, of course that was decades ago, before I tried to make a difference politically and became so disillusioned.

But yeah, if you don't deal with something long enough, you forget about it, and change is change, it's new here. It may still not be that way in CA (I volunteered for poling places there most of my life, still have the pins).

Again, it matters to me because it's just another way to force everyone to choose one side or another, when there should be no sides, we should be working together to get things done, people with different opinions or beliefs, that try and find a middle ground, and hopefully a candidate that most can agree on.

That has not been the case my entire life.

PS. I got a 4.0 for both my AA and BA and a 3.97 GPA for my Masters. Sadly my memory blows at this point, so while I easily passed all the CSETS in CA to teach years ago, I cculdn't probably pass any besides the Math (and maybe science because so much is based on logic) at this point.

---

Is it really that weird for the voting to decide a party's representative is members only?

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Is it really that weird for the voting to decide a party's representative is members only?

No

---

wolfy42 posted...

WA state is forcing residents to declare on their voting ballets as either republican or democrat in order to vote for the primaries. Your declaration has to align with the vote inside as well.

This has never been a requirement in the past (anywhere that I know of), and I think it's unconstitutional. You should not have to be a republican or a democrat (or declare as one) in order to vote.

How are they even getting away with this?

It's common sense to only allow members of a party to vote in that respective party's primary and, quite frankly, that system doesn't go far enough. Many -- if not most -- states require you to register as a member of a party to vote in that party's primaries.

wolfy42 posted...

More than that, if you don't vote right (if you vote for more then one person even another democrat) or follow the exact rules, your vote doesn't count.

Pretty sure that's how the system works in most states. If you cast an ineligible vote, that vote doesn't count.

wolfy42 posted...

In addition, Trump is the only republican candidate, so he automatiially gets all the delegates. The democrats have to get 15% or more of a district to get them, and they can be split up. If contested then the delegates can vote for whoever they want.

Literally how that's always worked.

wolfy42 posted...

Finally, horribly, your choice (Dem or Rep) is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE that anyone can look up for 60 days after the election. So not only are you forced to choose a side (Even if your a moderate and don't consider yourself a dem or rep) but now everyone is going to know what side you chose as well.

Why would that be horrible? It's your party affiliation. Many states keep a record of that for much longer. CT, for instance, has public records hosted on the internet showing which party you're registered for and iirc when you registered/switched parties. Actually, it's a bit more intrusive because it combines other pieces of information and -- although public information as well -- makes them easier to find.

wolfy42 posted...

At least in CA and WA you could vote without declaring throughout my whole life (but havn't been in CA for awhile). There should be a third option and I certainly don't feel like it should be public knowledge on top of removing the third option. Your basically forcing people to choose a side.

And if you're voting in one SIDE'S primaries, you should pick a SIDE

wolfy42 posted...

In some ways, this could actually harm peoples careers as well, as republican owners of buisinesses etc, could now see which employees are democrats and fire them eventually (obviously for other reasons, but if you look for one, you can probably find it). I heard this was done in places like N Carolina etc, but it could easily start happening in Washington now as well.

Most of the people who might get fired over their politics don't need to be identified by a website, they're vocal enough on their own and by their actions potentially impact their companies.


---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Is it really that weird for the voting to decide a party's representative is members only?

It's not weird...IF it was actually acomplishing anything AND it was private, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

But it's having no effect at all, and it's putting out private information for everyone to see. Meanwhile it's also causing people to have to declare for a party, even if they are somewhere inbetween them. Third party/moderate etc should be an option (And was considered but rejected).

You should be able to vote undeclared and still just vote once. You can declare as Dem now, vote for the least likely to win, and then vote rep during the main election....so it's not doing anything, except dividing people up more, and putting their choices out there for everyone to see.

---

wolfy42 posted...

It's not weird...IF it was actually acomplishing anything AND it was private, I wouldn't really have a problem with it.

But it's having no effect at all, and it's putting out private information for everyone to see. Meanwhile it's also causing people to have to declare for a party, even if they are somewhere inbetween them. Third party/moderate etc should be an option (And was considered but rejected).

You should be able to vote undeclared and still just vote once. You can declare as Dem now, vote for the least likely to win, and then vote rep during the main election....so it's not doing anything, except dividing people up more, and putting their choices out there for everyone to see.

You say "if it was accomplishing anything" and acknowledge the merits before immediately walking back what you said and insisting that parties effectively shouldn't exist.

---

Zeus posted...

that system doesn't go far enough. Many -- if not most -- states require you to register as a member of a party to vote in that party's primaries.

If that was the case, I could understand (I'd still be upset). If you had to declare Dem or Rep and stick with it, in other words if you vote dem in the primaries, you have to vote dem in the final election, that might make some sense at least (Because you wouldn't be able to sabatoge the other side basically). So I agree with you, it doesn't go far enough (not that I would be happy if it did).

I do think you should be able to vote for both if you declare as unselected, you should have a say in who becomes president even if your not a Dem or Rep, and since it's a two party system right now, the only way to have a say is to vote for who the candidate is for each party.

I'm a moderate, I like things from both sides, and most importantly, I want both sides to work together not fight each other all the time. Should I have no say in who gets elected, or just a say once the choice has come down to the last 2 options?

There are many people like me out there, and it's not fair to force them to declare as either Dem or Rep, but whatever, ain't my system, don't gotta try and fix it.

---

Zeus posted...

You say "if it was accomplishing anything" and acknowledge the merits before immediately walking back what you said and insisting that parties effectively shouldn't exist.

It is not accomplishing ANYTHING right now in my state, it may be different elsewhere.

Here though, ANYONE can declare DEm and then vote on the options. Even if there were Rep options, that would STILL make more sense for republicans tbh. There are none, so what is stopping all republicans for delcaring themselves Dem when voting (doesn't affect anything else) and then voting on the least popular candidate so no one gets the 15% they need?

Meanwhile it's made the voting process more complicated, and added new ways for votes not to count, while also allowing private info that was not available before, to be made available to anyone.......and in many cases forcing people who are not members of one party or the other to declare as such, while putting what they declared out there for others to see.

Just cause it's common elsewhere, doesn't mean it makes sense, or is a good change.

---

wolfy42 posted...

This is disgusting

lmao this is how it is most places dude

edit: thats how it is in California where you apparently used to live. I just reregistered as a dem so I could vote in the primaries next month.

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

lmao this is how it is most places dude

edit: thats how it is in California where you apparently used to live. I just reregistered as a dem so I could vote in the primaries next month.

In California, under Proposition 14, a measure that easily passed, traditional party primaries were replaced in 2011 with wide-open elections. Proposition 14, known as the open primary measure, gave every voter the same ballot in primary elections for most state and federal races, except the presidential contest

---

wolfy42 posted...

WA state is forcing residents to declare on their voting ballets as either republican or democrat in order to vote for the primaries. Your declaration has to align with the vote inside as well.

This has never been a requirement in the past (anywhere that I know of), and I think it's unconstitutional. You should not have to be a republican or a democrat (or declare as one) in order to vote.

How are they even getting away with this?

Primaries are a party thing.

As long as they don't prevent you from voting on any official elections there is nothing unconstitutional about it, different states have different rules.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Primaries are a party thing.

As long as they don't prevent you from voting on any official elections there is nothing unconstitutional about it, different states have different rules.

GRRRRR.

I understand it's the way it is, and I just have to live with it, but it feels wrong to me. I am a US citizen. I have paid taxes my whole life, I should get a voice in who our elected officials are, and who is nominated for president of the US. I should not be shunted aside if I'm not willing to declare as a Dem or Rep until the final vote, only allowed to vote for the two people the parties decided should be my choice.

But whatever, it's reality, I just need to deal with it. It was already reality (this hasn't really changed anything), it just was a slap in the face basically, forcing me to declare in order to have any say at all.

---

I dont think Ive ever voted in the Primaries...
---

wolfy42 posted...

GRRRRR.

I understand it's the way it is, and I just have to live with it, but it feels wrong to me. I am a US citizen. I have paid taxes my whole life, I should get a voice in who our elected officials are, and who is nominated for president of the US. I should not be shunted aside if I'm not willing to declare as a Dem or Rep until the final vote, only allowed to vote for the two people the parties decided should be my choice.

But whatever, it's reality, I just need to deal with it. It was already reality (this hasn't really changed anything), it just was a slap in the face basically, forcing me to declare in order to have any say at all.

The parties are heavily linked to the government but are still considered private organizations.

It's part of why the two party system is so bad.

wolfy42 posted...

I should get a voice in who our elected officials are, and who is nominated for president of the US.

you do... just because youre being weird and dont want to pick a party until election day doesnt mean you dont have a say in the nominations
lmao just fucking register

---

I know most people consider lying to just be normal and everyone should do it. I don't. I have lied, on purpose, by accident, and to myself, but don't make a habit of it, and I try and avoid it.

In order to vote at all on the primaries, I have to lie and declare myself a democrat (or in future elections possibly a republican), which I do not consider myself to be.

If I don't do that, I can't vote till the end.

To further that, my "lie" is then made public, stating to the world I am something which I am not, or do not consider myself to be.

I should be able to vote while being classified as undecided at least. STill only get 1 vote, so what difference would it make?

---

youre really really overthinking this. what are the consequences of you lying about your party preference? there are none. You face bigger consequences by opting out of it because then you dont get to pick at all.

either register and vote or dont and stop complaining. the only reason you cant vote is cause of your own stupid ass reasons

---

I have not decided if I will or not yet actually, but I probably will reg as Dem and vote since it's the only way I will make a difference. I can, and do, object to having to do so though.

Should we all just go with the flow and not object to things we dislike or changes we don't agree with?

This is new here, not something that has been this way for a long time. I do not see how I am wrong for pointing it out or objecting to being forced to declare myself something I am not.


---

wolfy42 posted...

I do not see how I am wrong for pointing it out or objecting to being forced to declare myself something I am not.

because it doesnt matter... like at all

---

wolfy42 posted...

If that was the case, I could understand (I'd still be upset). If you had to declare Dem or Rep and stick with it, in other words if you vote dem in the primaries, you have to vote dem in the final election, that might make some sense at least (Because you wouldn't be able to sabatoge the other side basically). So I agree with you, it doesn't go far enough (not that I would be happy if it did).

I don't see any logic or reasoning to that argument, especially if your favored candidate lost. Voting in a primary is separate from voting in a general election. And if you're really worried about sabotage, the easiest way to sabotage a primary is to allow anybody to vote in it regardless of party affiliation. The system you were suggesting just a little while ago -- where you wouldn't be penalized for voting for multiple people -- would let you pick candidates from BOTH parties and that would pretty much guarantee abuse.

wolfy42 posted...

I do think you should be able to vote for both if you declare as unselected, you should have a say in who becomes president even if your not a Dem or Rep, and since it's a two party system right now, the only way to have a say is to vote for who the candidate is for each party.

That makes no fucking sense. Because you're not a member of either party, you should be allowed to pick the representatives for both parties? wtf? If you aren't aligned with either party, why should you be allowed to have say in EITHER selection, let alone both? You're suggesting that people have more power for not picking a side.

wolfy42 posted...

I'm a moderate, I like things from both sides, and most importantly, I want both sides to work together not fight each other all the time. Should I have no say in who gets elected, or just a say once the choice has come down to the last 2 options?

There are many people like me out there, and it's not fair to force them to declare as either Dem or Rep, but whatever, ain't my system, don't gotta try and fix it.

And why should you be allowed to choose for both sides when people on one side can only choose for that one side?

Just pick a party.

wolfy42 posted...

It is not accomplishing ANYTHING right now in my state, it may be different elsewhere.

Here though, ANYONE can declare DEm and then vote on the options. Even if there were Rep options, that would STILL make more sense for republicans tbh. There are none, so what is stopping all republicans for delcaring themselves Dem when voting (doesn't affect anything else) and then voting on the least popular candidate so no one gets the 15% they need?

Meanwhile it's made the voting process more complicated, and added new ways for votes not to count, while also allowing private info that was not available before, to be made available to anyone.......and in many cases forcing people who are not members of one party or the other to declare as such, while putting what they declared out there for others to see.

Just cause it's common elsewhere, doesn't mean it makes sense, or is a good change.

Then the issue is that it doesn't go far enough and you need actual closed primaries instead of a half-measure.

wolfy42 posted...

I understand it's the way it is, and I just have to live with it, but it feels wrong to me. I am a US citizen. I have paid taxes my whole life, I should get a voice in who our elected officials are, and who is nominated for president of the US. I should not be shunted aside if I'm not willing to declare as a Dem or Rep until the final vote, only allowed to vote for the two people the parties decided should be my choice.

...you already have a say. If you want an additional say in the selection process, join a party. You talk about being a moderate, but I'm a centrist -- a left-leaning centrist, to be exact, which is damn close to dead center -- and I'm registered as a Democrat. If even I register for a party -- despite not liking either one -- what's your excuse?

And if you don't like the candidates one year to the next, change parties. Pretty simple. However, don't expect to support a candidate in one party then be able to sabotage candidates in the other party because that's not how it is or should be.


---

Mead posted...

I dont see the problem with them doing so for a primary

for a general election they cant do that

That's my thoughts on the matter. Preventing people from voting for a third party in the general election would be very bad (as much as the two-party system makes those votes pretty meaningless), but ensuring that people can't mess around with who's elected to lead the various parties is reasonable enough.

---

This has been a thing for pretty much forever.

To be honest, I didn't even realize there were states where they didn't do that in the primaries.
---

Political parties are private enterprises, not a government operation. They can restrict the voting for who will represent them to members of their party only if they want.
It sucks, I know.... I'm also unaffiliated and locked out unless I temporarily join a party. But it's their right to do it.

The real problem is that we have a two party system enabled by First Past the Post voting, so the unaffiliated voter has no say at all in who his choices for president are in the general election.
Of course, the two parties enforce this situation to benefit themselves, and even restrict third parties from being able to debate* with the two main party candidates, so... They deserve all the shit they get for locking people out of voting in their primaries.

* The committee for organizing the presidential debates is oddly not a government institution but one run by Dems and Reps. 30 years ago, Gary Johnson's 2016 polling numbers would've been enough to put him on the debate stage. But after Ross Perot managed to make it there and grow his support, the two parties changed the rules and set the bar for entry impossibly high for a 3rd party candidate to ever attain.

TyVulpine posted...

A lot of states, you do have to be registered as an R or D to vote in the respective primaries. This is nothing new. I guess it's to ensure shenanigans don't ensue with people stuffing ballots boxes to screw with the election.

In my state you can declare unaffiliated and vote in both. Ita exactly why I went with that aside from i have and will continue to vote for both sides suited on which candidates I like more.

---

So how do you vote third party?

---

Lokarin posted...

So how do you vote third party?

In the process of electing leaders for the two main parties? You don't.

---

You vote Yang

---

Blighboy posted...

You vote Yang

he got elected to CNN

---

LinkPizza posted...

I dont think Ive ever voted in the Primaries...

Get your shit together

That goes for all of y'all, too. Check your registrations and primary dates and go vote

---

So, I've been reading this, but I don't understand. Why do you have to pick a party to vote in the primaries? What is the point, anyway? I haven't actually read anything that would make this a necessity...

RCtheWSBC posted...

Get your shit together

That goes for all of y'all, too. Check your registrations and primary dates and go vote

But it's not the real vote, right? It's just the pre-vote or whatever...
---

A primary is not a general election.

---

LinkPizza posted...

But it's not the real vote, right? It's just the pre-vote or whatever...

its the vote to choose the candidate

it is important

---

LinkPizza posted...

But it's not the real vote, right?

If its the DNC then it's not even a vote at all since they'll pick whatever establishment candidate they choose regardless of who the people vote for

Mead posted...

its the vote to choose the candidate

it is important

But Idk who I want to vote for...
---

LinkPizza posted...

But Idk who I want to vote for...

thats okay, some people dont decide who to vote for until they actually have their ballot

https://www.votesaveamerica.com/the-candidates/

---